Deepak Paliwal v. Acit, Cir 68(1), Delhi
$~346 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10739/2024 DEEPAK PALIWAL .....Petitioner Through:
Ms.
Rano Jain and Mr.
Venketesh Mohan, Advs.
versus ACIT, CIR 68(1), DELHI .....Respondent Through:
Mr. Aseem Chawla, SSC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
O R D E R
% 05.08.2024 CM APPL. 44230/2024 (Ex.) Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 10739/2024 & CM APPL. 44229/2024 (Stay) 1.
This writ petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:- "1. Issue a writ of Certiorari or writ of mandamus or appropriate writ, direction or order a. setting aside the impugned notice of demand u/s 221(1) of the Act dated 13.01.2020 and 04.02.2020, in the Petitioner's case.
b. Setting aside the demand as being shown in the Income Tax Portal of the Petitioner.
c. Directing the Respondent to pay back the refunds claimed by the Petitioner which have been unjustifiably adjusted against the unjustified demand.
2. Pass any other Order that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of equity, justice and fair play." 2.
The principal grievance of the writ petitioner is that although the employer had duly deducted tax from the salary and other emoluments paid, on account of the failure on its part to make and The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
effect consequential deposits, various demands are being shown as recoverable against the petitioner. The petitioner is essentially aggrieved with the position which obtains in respect of Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2011-12 and 2012-13.
3.
We note that we had, while dealing with an identical controversy in Shantanu Awasthi vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 67(1), Delhi & Ors.1, taken the position struck by the respondents themselves in respect of such similar grievances. 4.
When the matter arrived again before our Board in Abhijit Bhave vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle 67(1), Delhi & Ors.2, we had disposed of that writ petition in the following terms:- "1. Having heard learned counsels for parties, we note that the challenge which stands raised here would stand concluded in light of the judgment rendered by the Court in Shantanu Awasthi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 67(1) [W.P.(C) 3518/2023]. In Shantanu Awasthi while dealing with an identical controversy, we had allowed the writ petition on the following terms:- "1. The writ petitioners are constrained to approach this Court pursuant to demands being imposed against them despite tax having been duly deducted from the salary which was earned in the concerned Assessment Years. The default in deposit of TDS is attributed to the inaction of the employer. 2.
Pursuant to the earlier orders passed the respondents have, bearing in mind the Office Memorandum ["OM"] of the Central Board of Direct Taxes ["CBDT"] dated 11 March 2016, passed the following orders insofar as the writ petitioners in WP(C) 3545/2023 and 3547/2023 are concerned.
W.P.(C) 3545/2023 (Siddharth Arora) "Sir/Madam/M/s.
Subject: Online service of Orders - Letter Stay of demand in the case of Siddharth Arora PANAHEPA8010H for the A.Y. 2021-22-reg.
Kindly refer to your writ petition filed before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court against the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act consequent demand created for the A.Υ. 2021-22 vide demand 1 Order dated 08.05.2024 in W.P.(C) 3518/2023 2 Order dated 24.07.2024 in W.P.(C) 3989/2023 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
notice dated 18.09.2022 of Rs.12,76,564/- respectively issued by CPC, Bengaluru on the captioned subject.
In this connection, your petition before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has been perused and it was found that you have drawn the salary for the concerned years i.e. A.Υ. 2021- 22 and tax has been duly deducted but the same has not been deposited by the employer. In view of the above facts and circumstances and after taking into account of the CBDT office memorandum and further examining the legality and validity of the nondeposit of demand by the employer, your petition for stay of demand has been perused and examination stay is hereby granted and demand is restrained by holding no coercive action is being taken against the demands for the A.Y. 2021-22." W.P.(C) 3547/2023 (Ankit Vij) "Sir/Madam/M/s.
Subject: Online service of Orders - Letter Stay of demand in the case of Ankit Vij, PAN: AHMPV9163C for the A.Y. 2020-21 & 2021-22-reg. Kindly refer to your writ petition filed before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court against the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act consequent demand created for the A.Y. 2020-21 & 2021-22 vide demand notice dated 03.02.2022 and 28.03.2022 of Rs.6,21,430/- & Rs. 1,95,600/- respectively issued by CPC, Bengaluru on the captioned subject.
In this connection, your petition before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has been perused and it was found that you have drawn the salary for the concerned years i.e. A.Y. 2020- 21 & 2021-22 and tax has been duly deducted but the same has not been deposited by the employer.
In view of the above facts and circumstances and after taking into account of the CBDT office memorandum and further examining the legality and validity of the non-deposit of demand by the employer, your petition for stay of demand has been perused and after examination stay is hereby granted and demand is restrained by holding no coercive action is being taken against the demands for the A.Y. 2020-21 & 2021-22."
3. We note that the CBDT's OM of 11 March 2016 seeks to address this very issue. Since the deduction of TDS from the salaries of the petitioners is not disputed, we find no justification for the demands being shown as outstanding against the writ petitioners.
4. We, accordingly, dispose of these three writ petitions on lines identical to those which have been adopted by the Assessing Officer in WP(C) 3545/2023 and 3547/2023.
5. We additionally call upon the respondents to ensure that all demands with respect to TDS as currently reflected against the petitioners on the Income Tax Business Application portal are consequently deleted."
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
2. Following the aforesaid judgment, we allow the present writ petition quash the impugned demands dated 14 September 2022 and 20 October 2022. We additionally call upon the respondents to ensure that all demands with respect to TDS as currently reflected against the petitioner on the Income Tax Business Application portal are consequently deleted.
3. The writ petition stands disposed of on the above terms." 5.
Accordingly and since the petitioner stands on identical footing, we allow the writ petition and quash the impugned demands dated 13 January 2020 and 04 February 2020 under Section 221(1) of the Act and additionally call upon the respondent to ensure that all demands pertaining to TDS as currently being reflected against the petitioner on the Income Tax Business Application portal are consequently deleted. 6.
The writ petition stands disposed of on the above terms. YASHWANT VARMA, J.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
AUGUST 5, 2024/neha The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.